On December 21st, Reloaded started to proper several releases of SkidRow for the following reason:Proper Note:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
SKIDROW did not crack the securom protection, but patched the activation
routine to bypass the protection. This is not an accepted method for a
crack.
Included is a proper crack with the securom protection removed. Unlike the
previous release, this update also works with savegames from the original
release.

SKIDROW, pressured by this, decided to argue by spreading irrelevant,
speculative, and unfactual information about our work. We didn't know whether
to laugh or to cry at this latest round of misinformation. One thing that
makes us smile, is that the more they try to explain, the more they reveal
themselves to understand little or nothing about Securom, or indeed any of
the other copy protections mentioned. It also reveals that while they have
permission to use an old group name, and are using the word 'scene' a lot,
they are quite new to it, and understand little of what it is about.

For those who have not read the propaganda, here is a short summary of the
main points. According to SKIDROW:
- RELOADED cracks are bad, because SKIDROW does not understand how they work.
- SKIDROW cracks are good, because they do not know how to do it any better.
- End users, who are not contributing anything to the scene, do not
understand any of this anyhow, and do not care if they use good cracks or
bad ones.
- Conclusion: we're allowed to do whatever the hell we want, including bad
cracks.

To SKIDROW:

As you say we are not living in the year 2000 anymore. But there are at least
three groups who are able to crack Securom in a proper way. Just because it
is too hard for you does not make it acceptable to ignore rules, and start
using loaders for this protection.

We are not really sure why you would go off-topic and bring in examples of
all other copy protections in your nfo. Well actually, we do: you're hoping
that people will get distracted and buy it. But it does leave you with a
bunch of claims that you are not able to prove technically.
Especially when you start talking about copy protections such as Solidshield,
for which you have never demonstrated any ability to crack. The issue that
we were talking about is Securom. Basically everything you say in your nfo
is a complete fabrication, it is without proof, and although we should not
have to defend ourselves against mud slingers such as yourselves, we will
address some of the lies below.

First of all we will say something about our Solidshield cracks, because it is
obvious that you do not understand how Solidshield works at all. If you had
ever cracked any Solidshield game instead of using unprotected exes, you
would know that dvm.dll contains tables with VMed functions for all protected
modules.
That is also why these DVM files are so big (~100MB). In our cracked
releases, the replacement dll is ~100KB. Perhaps you think we stumbled upon
some fantasy land, overflowing with unprotected russian files, rode a
unicorn, did some magic, and packed encrypted VM tables from 100MB to 100KB.
If you would debug it you would see that our dll only decrypts modules in
the same way as Solidshield does and it redirects stolen functions to
completely rebuild functions, but you appear incapable of even doing that on
your own.
In the cases of Risen and Riddick you claim we did 'activation', but both
cracks are complete rebuilds. In fact Risen does not even have activation,
but a TAGES DVD-Check. There is not even any activation method present, so
how could we activate something without activation? Magic & unicorns again?
We'll chalk up this lie to a mistake, as it is also besides the point if we
did activation keygens for SS1 and SS2.
Keygens were always allowed and are often times the best solution, as they
break the copy protection on its own premise, by actually activating the
product. Many times they even work for updates, which is great, unless your
main concern with updates is to patch every one for points. But if you are
seriously arguing against activation keygens, you are also arguing against
regular keygens, and indeed serials. So, better get patching, eh?

About our steam emu. We are not sure what exactly the emu of cs.rin.ru does,
but we do understand that you have spent a fair amount of time perusing that
particular forum community, and to put it mildly, learning from their
experiences. The claim sure does seem like a big case of "takes one to know
one", but last time we checked TASM could not compile C++ files.

Now we can finally go back to the real issue, Securom. You make a lot of
bold statements and strange comments in your nfo:
1) Our method is "cheesy"? Come on. We seriously doubt that you even
understand our cracks, but since we are cool guys, we will provide a brief
description of how we make them, so that perhaps you may at last understand.
We:
- remove all pieces of x86 code that makes the game dependent on Securom
section(s)
- remove all references to relocated code that exists in isolated memory
blocks
- decompile (look up the word in a computer science dictionary) all VM
programs and rebuild the original x86 code
2) You speak of 'vm triggers'. What is a VM trigger? Could it be a simple VM
call? Could it be that you are calling the SMS module a VM trigger?
Either way, in our cracks we rebuild all VM functions, including a few custom
functions that only appear in certain games.
SMS, DFE and DFA systems are obviously emulated because the games heavily
rely on it. Unless you completely rewrite parts of the game code there is
no way to remove it. If you have problems understanding this concept, just
think of your steam cracks that are still filled with original code
(integrity checks, system checks, etc).
How can you possibly say we emulate the exact same way as you do? Only
people who have no clue about Securom would make such ludicrous claims.

In conclusion, SKIDROW has proven that they do no care about the scene or
its rules. To them, the scene is not about sharing with people who
contribute, but about becoming the darling of leechers by breaking rules and
slandering the competition. As a means to an end, it is apparently their
strategy to provide no evidence for claims that are at best misleading, but
most of the time just direct and factual lies.